Originally posted by utherpendragonNot at all. As soon as the NEW UN requires that countries freely and fairly elect their representatives, we will be there. Do you have a problem with an elected American representative sitting down with an elected Russian, German, Pole, Brazilian, South African, Australian, Fijian, Indian, Thai, Malaysian, etc. and coming up with solutions for problems that affect nations equally?
This whole notion of a one world government with all nations merging is absurd and a very sophomoric idea.
We already know the arab situation. Could you see the Russians, China,or N.Korea fitting into this scenario ?
The bottom line is we are always going to have separate nations and we are always going to have wars with one nation trying to impose their will or desires onto another one.
China and N. Korea (along with Cuba, Belorussia, Zimbabwe and a few other nations) would be left out in the cold -- no seat at the table and no way to influence the outcome and get what they want until such time as those nations could hold free and fair elections. But of course, they would be required to abide by what the NEW UN decided because legitimate democratic decisions by the free peoples of the world cannot be ignored by ANY nation. These decisions would be backed up militarily by the might of the Free World as necessary.
The benefits of the NEW UN would be legion: abolition of war, hastened demise of totalitarianism and dictatorship, increased freedom for everyone in the world.
There are still a lot of people who still cling to 18th century notions of "national sovereignty" which are as outdated as the powdered-wigs worn by the people who thought them up, but their days are coming gradually to an end.
Originally posted by TeinosukeNo, just that the League did nothing to prevent it. It was as ineffective as the current UN in certain ways -- as any unelected body will always be ineffective -- because it does not draw it's power from the unique source of all governmental power which is the people themselves.
By the way, are you implying that if the League of Nations hadn't existed in 1938, then World War II wouldn't have happened?
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Abolition of war? Sounds like your proposal would lead to a long-term state of war as the "free world" launches war after war to depose and topple the world's numerous dictatorships.
Not at all. As soon as the NEW UN requires that countries freely and fairly elect their representatives, we will be there. Do you have a problem with an elected American representative sitting down with an elected Russian, German, Pole, Brazilian, South African, Australian, Fijian, Indian, Thai, Malaysian, etc. and coming up with solutions for problems ed-wigs worn by the people who thought them up, but their days are coming gradually to an end.
And as soon as "the NEW UN" invades, say, Cuba, then Belarus will be rushing to build or buy nuclear weapons as a deterrent against similar attacks, so the result will be increasing nuclear proliferation (we've already seen something similar after the invasion of Iraq, with North Korea and Iran rushing to acquire nuclear capability). Indeed, it seems fairly obvious that the consequences of an attack by "the free world" on nuclear-armed China with its more than a billion citizens, would be appreciably worse than the continuation of Chinese dictatorship.
Originally posted by moon1969http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Yes, not anytime soon. Not in our lifetime. But it will happen. A single world currency. A single world government.
"According to Raymond Aron, international relations are characterized by the absence of the monopoly on violence in the relationship between states."
Originally posted by TeinosukeWar only occurs because there is no way for international problems to be settled legitimately, e.g. through democratic consensus of the people involved.
Abolition of war? Sounds like your proposal would lead to a long-term state of war as the "free world" launches war after war to depose and topple the world's numerous dictatorships.
And as soon as "the NEW UN" invades, say, Cuba, then Belarus will be rushing to build or buy nuclear weapons as a deterrent against similar attacks, so the result will be i ...[text shortened]... lion citizens, would be appreciably worse than the continuation of Chinese dictatorship.
The Free World doesn't have to declare any wars. Totalitarian regimes can be isolated and restricted until they are weak enough to be picked off one by one or collapse on their own. This would just encourage that process.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358A war of aggression launched by a freely elected government is no less illegitimate than one launched by a non-freely elected government.
War only occurs because there is no way for international problems to be settled legitimately, e.g. through democratic consensus of the people involved.
The Free World doesn't have to declare any wars. Totalitarian regimes can be isolated and restricted until they are weak enough to be picked off one by one or collapse on their own. This would just encourage that process.
"Democratic consensus" is insufficient to settle all international, national or local problems.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358There are lot of totalitarian regimes. They'll no doubt all make friends with each other so it will be difficult to isolate them.
War only occurs because there is no way for international problems to be settled legitimately, e.g. through democratic consensus of the people involved.
The Free World doesn't have to declare any wars. Totalitarian regimes can be isolated and restricted until they are weak enough to be picked off one by one or collapse on their own. This would just encourage that process.
Wars occur for plenty of reasons - eg, territorial aggrandisement, religious differences, debates over scarce resources - which are not easily resolvable by democratic consensus.
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969Eh, I see possibly a single world confederation of workers' syndicates, cooperatives and other forms of communities and municipal entities, with some forms of electronic currency being used between individuals and businesses, but also a lot of trade and barter between the communities. These kinds of cooperatives could perform great "world-class" feats on a voluntary basis, for example to tackle environmental problems and undertake space exploration. Education would be the key however, and (perhaps ironically) people will have to be less provincial in their thinking to make such a global system of "anarcho-communitarianism" work.
Yes, not anytime soon. Not in our lifetime. But it will happen. A single world currency. A single world government.
Ming the Merciless is correct in saying that a single world government would be undesirable. Still, there could be world assemblies that form and dissolve now and again to help various efforts that require global coordination, but they would be temporary advisory bodies.